NoctisVsStar
Member
Yes, but only one person is actually doing something unethical and probably illegal:
The employee who leaked the information
agreed
Yes, but only one person is actually doing something unethical and probably illegal:
The employee who leaked the information
I agree. But why would you say that the Pubs are within their rights to blacklist but then say they should solely blame the leaker?
Just because they have a right to blacklist doesn't mean it's the smart thing for them to do.
Fair enough. But you could say the same about Kotaku running an article about leaked info.
Sure, you "could", but I'd disagree with it.
I think it was very smart for Kotaku to publish this. It's of major interest to their readers, it's a major exclusive scoop, so if they didn't run it, another outlet would've gotten the information anyway.
And in the end, their being blacklisted doesn't really negatively affect their coverage. As Totilo describes in his post, it just changes their coverage. In some ways for the better.
And they still get the financial incentive of hits which allows them to continue to pay people who can get future scoops and write actual investigative stories much more interesting than simple leaks. Like their Destiny feature.
But according to Jason it most certainly does, the example he gave was giving comments on stories, providing interviews etc. They don't have that access or relationship now, and he mentioned they've made many attempts since the blacklist to reach out, so clearly it is in their benefit to have access otherwise they wouldn't bother reaching out so much. Personally I don't think it was worth it for a couple mostly snoozer tier "leaks", seems like the aggregate benefit going forwards would have been much higher had they not published those.
edit: Yes, other outlets can provide interviews and comments as well, but how does that help kotaku?
And Kotaku has every reason to report on the blacklist. Isn't it nice how it all comes full circle like that?
Bluntly: if I was a head of a big publisher (or even an indie developer) and information about the games I was working on was leaked by a games website years before it's in a state I'd be confident in revealing to the general public, you can bet your bottom dollar that said games website is being sent to Coventry. Kotaku's attitude reeks of entitlement, which will hit them as developers and publishers alike realise that the games press is entirely optional.
One could just as easily argue that game info leaks are free publicity, and help build hype.
So there's nothing but speculation? Or going from your posts, only speculation that leaves zero room for there the possibility of negative consequences for Bethesda and Ubisoft?
This action by the publishers makes me more skeptical of positive coverage for any their games. If they're doing this, what other measures are they taking, subtle or otherwise, to skew the landscape? What are other sites or youtubers getting or not getting for being positive?
And I completely agree.
Again, the blame here is squarely on the employee who leaked the information. The employee is literally the only person doing something unethical (and probably illegal). The employee is the one damaging his or her coworker's hard work.
Kotaku is well within their right to publish leaked information. It's not their prerogative or duty to think of the PR people whose days this will ruin. If Kotaku didn't publish it, someone else would, and the status quo is still the same. The employee is still to blame, the PR people still have work ruined, etc.
Just like Bethesda is well within its right to blacklist Kotaku (even though it's a stupid thing to do)
Just like Kotaku is well within its right to write about the fact they've been blacklisted, especially since it answers their readers' questions around "why is your coverage late"
It's a complete whitewashing of the situation though. Framing the multinational corporation as an innocent "developer" who had their confidence betrayed by the evil-by-nature journalist. As has been pointed out, the information reported on was not given in confidence but intended to be shared.
The one point that the comic does make is that journalism will report on these things by its nature, so expecting otherwise is pointless. It's clear which side they're coming down on in this comparison though. It also happens to be the side that pays them money.
I came to post that exact comic. There is also an entry from Jerry talking about this.
I don't even understand what Kotaku blacklisting a youtuber would mean. They didn't write articles about Boogie? Do they write articles about most youtubers?
Every youtuber who didn't get an article on Kotaku could they say were 'blacklisted' by this definition.
Well I decided to watch the video its here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Ll7h85-78
For anyone who cares to see it and right there in the video is my biggest problem with this. They did contact Boogie to get his side of a story about youtubers and marketing deals for Shadows of Mordor. If he was blacklisted as he claimed why the hell would they have bothered to contact him at all?
I would agree that they're coming from the side that pays them money, but that's ok. Journalists get their money by catering to the userbase that visits them. Both sides are doing it for the money, so that renders that point moot, I think.
The multinational corportations are far from innocent, but it doesn't mean that it makes them bad for blacklisting Kotaku. They had to have known it was coming if they kept it up, and kept it up they did.
Why Kotaku Was Right To Go Public When They Were Blacklisted By Two Major Video Game Publishers
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...e-blacklisted-by-major-video-game-publishers/
I've watched the video and I'm even more confused. Was there a later news story about Boogie that he wasn't allowed to give an official comment on? What is the blacklisting here? He literally says, like, "They didn't respond to my tweets" ...
I would agree that they're coming from the side that pays them money, but that's ok. Journalists get their money by catering to the userbase that visits them. Both sides are doing it for the money, so that renders that point moot, I think.
The multinational corportations are far from innocent, but it doesn't mean that it makes them bad for blacklisting Kotaku. They had to have known it was coming if they kept it up, and kept it up they did.
That's what he means by "blacklist." This is what gamergaters actually believe.What is the blacklisting here? He literally says, like, "They didn't respond to my tweets" ...
OK. Great. Publishers -- in your mind -- do a great job of keeping the public adequately informed about their products. Forget the world as it exists right now and your opinion on current journalists (or the enthusiast press if you will). Let's say I'm an aspiring writer who wants to report about video games and NOT work for a publisher. What role is there for me in your mind?
This is literally exactly how he acted in the gamergate thread. The dude's basically absolutely paranoid & treats personal criticisms or comments questioning his character as declarations of war he needs to escalate over.
also lol at the part of Jerry's post where he implies that maybe Kotaku is LYING about being blacklisted, who knows, I really don't care about Kotaku or what they say!!!!!!!!
I can't tell whether that's trying way too fucking hard to seem edgy and uncaring, or if he's really gone so far down the "I read Trust Me, I'm Lying," swallow-the-red-pill-and-see-how-far-the-rabbit-hole-goes path that he really thinks that there's a possibility of that here.
That's misrepresenting their position, though. The idea is that a reviewer might write a few thousand words about a game, but all many (most?) users see is the number at the bottom. They're more prone to debating about the number -- why is this a 7.4 when this other game scored a 7.6? This game deserves at least a 7.8! -- than they are the text of the review, which I bet often go unread by the people arguing about a review the most. Since the numbers are a distraction, ditch 'em in favor of something more meaningful.They don't give review scores so they constantly talk about how review scores fuck everything up (even though a yes or no answer is in the end still a score a 0 or 1)
Kept what up? The comic and newspost frames this as the publisher being betrayed by a mean ol' bullying journalist after being honest with secrets and the nasty ol' journo spreading misinformation for their evil hateful gain.
The reality is that Kotaku was given information about games by leakers who wanted it to be published, and Kotaku did so accurately; that Fallout 4 would be set in Boston, and here was a page or two of information about it from a casting call (as Jason said, they didn't post the whole thing they got), and screenshots of Assassin's Creed showing that year's setting with disclaimers that they were unfinished.
Beyond that, they posted investigative stories about the Prey 2 situation and the troubles surrounding the newest Doom game, which are both well known debacles.
As much as people are trying to shift the focus to the question of, "Hypothetically, leaks could ruin games." instead of the actual reality, in which Kotaku did investigative reports that served the public interest, and several stories about wholly expected but unannounced AAA games that would also be of interest to consumers unless you are really so hypnotized by corporate hype cycles that "spoiling an announcement" is a real concern in your bizarre world.
also lol at the part of Jerry's post where he implies that maybe Kotaku is LYING about being blacklisted, who knows, I really don't care about Kotaku or what they say!!!!!!!!
I can't tell whether that's trying way too fucking hard to seem edgy and uncaring, or if he's really gone so far down the "I read Trust Me, I'm Lying," swallow-the-red-pill-and-see-how-far-the-rabbit-hole-goes path that he really thinks that there's a possibility of that here.
I don't even know what you're going on about. Kotaku has had plenty of controversy in the past, so let's not paint them as some eminence in the games journalism world.
My point was, they kept publishing things that the companies did not want published at all. They kept pushing the envelop with this. It's obvious that at some point the companies would get fed up with this and decided to blacklist Kotaku and other sites that have been acting like Kotaku has.
I mean, they need to protect their interests.
As I said earlier as well, leaks when they serve a specific purpose other than "Start Shit" as Jerry put it is something that that I can get behind on. Sometimes, those things are needed, and it's definitely in their job description as a journo to follow leads. But there are boundaries, and Kotaku kept pushing it. They thought they could keep doing it under the name of journalism. Naturally, they would get burned by that at some point.
It's not about who the good guy or bad guy is. It's just, let's not be surprised about the outcome.
I agree with you 100% and I know that is largely what they are trying to say my problem is with how they seem content to lord their opinion over everyone else who doesn't do it in the same way.That's misrepresenting their position, though. The idea is that a reviewer might write a few thousand words about a game, but all many (most?) users see is the number at the bottom. They're more prone to debating about the number -- why is this a 7.4 when this other game scored a 7.6? This game deserves at least a 7.8! -- than they are the text of the review, which I bet often go unread by the people arguing about a review the most. Since the numbers are a distraction, ditch 'em in favor of something more meaningful.
I'd love to see a site use a scale that means something: say, Skip It, Rent It, Wait for a Price Drop, Recommended, Essential. You can obviously map that from 1 to 5 as well, but at least expressly saying "Wait for a Price Drop" conveys a point, while 3.4 really doesn't. I'd also argue that mapping numbers to something that aren't meant to have numbers mapped to 'em just mucks up the works.
If I was Ubisoft, I would spill the beans about everything about the next Assassin's Creed to Kotaku extremely early, before it even has a chance to leak, and then give them an embargo so they can't post about it till it's officially revealed. Because Kotaku is bound to find out no matter what, but this way they can't post about it lol.
I watched it more closely, and Boogie seems to get angry at the assertion he wasn't blacklisted because he personally *believed* he was blacklisted, and he would never deceive others about how he felt. He's saying, "Are you saying I didn't believe I was blacklisted? I did!"
For some reason he's not getting the issue is was Boogie *actually* blacklisted. And as mentioned before, what would that even look like.
By giving Kotaku a bigger reason to not even give a single fuck? Not really seeing it.It's obvious that at some point the companies would get fed up with this and decided to blacklist Kotaku and other sites that have been acting like Kotaku has.
I mean, they need to protect their interests.
I don't see anything about the things they've been blacklisted over as "starting shit" unless you're the world's thinnest skinned marketing executive.
Having been the cowering creature beneath enthusiast media’s Eye of Sauron on more than one occasion, the object of their tender ministrations, their ostensible populism and their eerily synchronized perspective, I have no sympathy for these creatures.
Fyi all the stuff he's saying about neogaf posts is fairly similar.
I think people pointed out it's still homophobic to throw around f*g left and right if you only do it on websites where you won't get banned for it, to him that translates to "They think I'm a horrid piece of shit".
Going by the way he self-immolated on gaf I don't find it shocking at all how he's dealing with this situation.